Who Dun It? Midland or Firstview, or…?

Who Dun It? Midland or Firstview, or…?

By John Bradford Branney

 

Figure 1. The 2.4-inch-long ‘point in question’ for this exercise

in projectile point typology. Red dots indicate hafting-area grinding.

“Paleoindian components are traditionally seen as distinct cultural complexes, separated in time and space, and characterized by a single type or style of projectile point.” (Sellet 2001: 60).

I have thoroughly studied the ‘point in question’ in Figure 1. That projectile point was surface recovered in Cheyenne County, Colorado. It has attributes from the Midland projectile point type from the Early Paleoindian Period, the Firstview projectile point type from the Cody Complex, and the Milnesand projectile point type from the Middle Paleoindian Period. Even though Goshen-Plainview points can be easily confused with Midland points, I eliminated them from consideration since the ‘point in question’ lacked the characteristic basal thinning strikes which were often associated with the Goshen-Plainview projectile point type.    

Figure 2. Blunted/beveled proximal edge. 

The ‘point in question’ has straight to slightly convex lateral edges with a barely discernible squarish stem created by heavy grinding of the hafting area edges. Grinding or polishing along the proximal and hafting area edges was a common practice in Paleoindian and Early Archaic times. Collectors often use it to differentiate Paleoindian and Early Archaic projectile points from later period projectile points. The proximal edge of the point is straight and blunted/beveled with tiny pressure flakes taken from both faces, giving it a wedge-like appearance. No grinding is evident on the proximal edge. In my artifact database, I labeled the raw material as a dusky red Alibates agatized dolomite, but it could be something else entirely or just a run-of-the-mill dusky red agate. Grayish bands run vertically through the raw material but are only visible under the proper lighting. The flintknapper used well-controlled transverse parallel flaking, which terminated near the middle of the biface, forming a slight medial ridge and a lenticular cross-section.

Figure 3. Cross-section from proximal to distal end
for 'point in question'.   

Firstview. On December 8, 1957, avocational archaeologist Jerry Chubbuck discovered an exposed bone bed, a Paleoindian projectile point, and an end scraper in an eroded field along a tributary of the Big Sandy Creek in Cheyenne County, Colorado.  Chubbuck brought the site to the attention of archaeologist Joe Ben Wheat from the University of Colorado Museum. At that time, Wheat was unable to investigate the site immediately because he and his crew were committed to another project. Archaeologist H. M. Wormington of the Denver Museum of Natural History suggested that Chubbuck and Sig Olsen dig a few test pits near the exposed bonebed while they waited for Wheat to investigate. Chubbuck and Olsen’s investigation yielded a treasure trove of fifty bison skulls, two dozen projectile points or point fragments, and several stone tools.

Figure 4. Projectile points from the Chubbuck and Olsen 
investigation. Note similarities to Cody Complex.   

Examples of the projectile points that Chubbuck and Olsen found are shown in Figure 4. Chubbuck (1959: 4-10) originally classified ten of the points as Eden (4), Scottsbluff (4), and Scottsbluff Variants (2). I wholeheartedly agree with Chubbuck’s original assessment after viewing the five points in Figure 4. If I found any of those points on the ground as isolated finds and before the existence of the Firstview projectile point type, I would have classified them as either Scottsbluff or Eden.     

Figure 5. Wheat (1972: 24).

Joe Ben Wheat visited the site on April 30, 1958, and Chubbuck and Olsen relinquished their digging permit to the University of Colorado Museum. After two seasons of excavation, Wheat interpreted the Olsen-Chubbuck site as a single-event bison kill that took place around ten thousand years ago. Using spears and primitive weapons, the Paleoindian hunters trapped and killed at least 190 extinct Bison occidentalis beasts in a 170-foot-long ancient arroyo.  

The hunters drove so many bison into the arroyo that the investigators found the remains of fourteen animals at the bottom of the bonebed that had never been touched or butchered at all, and another forty-nine bison that were only partially processed for meat. After subtracting 9,000 pounds of meat that was wasted, Wheat (1972: 114) estimated that the Olsen-Chubbuck bison kill produced approximately 60,000 pounds or 30 tons of usable meat. What a haul! Figure 5 is a photograph from Wheat’s investigation of two cross sections cutting perpendicular across the long axis of the ancient arroyo.  

Forty-seven artifacts were found in the bone bed itself or around the bones already weathering on the surface of the ground. Of those artifacts, twenty-seven were either complete or partial projectile points. The projectile point count appeared light for dispatching 190 or more bison. The hunters either retrieved their weapon tips from the kill site or perhaps a lot of the bison were buried and suffocated to death in the arroyo. The dominant material for the projectile points was Knife River Chalcedony (33%) from rock quarries in modern-day North Dakota.

Wheat described the points as full-bodied and lanceolate or leaf-shaped. He noted that most of the projectile points had barely discernible stems, produced by grinding or polishing the hafting-area edges. He remarked that the proximal edges of the points were predominantly straight and wedge-shaped. Wheat reported the range of the projectile points from broad points with flat lenticular cross sections to relatively narrow points with diamond-shaped cross sections. He characterized the overall workmanship as excellent. The similarity in style and the outstanding craftsmanship of the projectile points make me wonder if one or more specialists within the tribe were responsible for making most of the projectile points.

Wheat (1967: 51) originally classified the projectile points as a mixture of Scottsbluff, Eden, and Milnesand points. Five years later, Wheat (1972: 140) revised his opinion and recognized most of the projectile points as a new type he called Firstview, after a nearby town. Wheat believed that a few of the projectile points were from the San Jon point type, named after a single square-based point found associated with Scottsbluff points at the San Jon Site in New Mexico (Roberts 1942). Wheat (1972: 143) commented that if that single square-based San Jon point had been found on the central or northern plains, it would have been called an Eden point. The need for a San Jon projectile point type is openly debated in both academic and artifact-collecting circles.

 

Figure 6. Keith Glasscock, in October 1953, pointing 
where he discovered fossilized human remains.
 (Photo courtesy of TARL Archives). 

Midland.  In 1953, Keith Glasscock, an avocational archaeologist from Pampa, Texas, discovered fossilized human remains in a sand blowout six miles southwest of Midland, Texas. Glasscock also found several fluted Folsom projectile points and an unfluted Folsom-like projectile point.  Understanding the significance of his discovery, he reported his find to archaeologist Fred Wendorf. Glasscock, Wendorf, and others investigated the site and found seven more fluted Folsom projectile points and twenty-one unfluted Folsom-like projectile points. 

Wendorf and his colleagues named the site Scharbauer after the landowner and used the term "unfluted Folsom point" to describe the projectile points found with the fluted Folsom points. The investigators studied the similarities and differences between the two styles of projectile points. They compared the raw material sources for the two projectile point types. The materials were similar and easily fluted, so stone was not the conditioning factor for fluting versus non-fluting. They questioned whether the two styles of projectile point were even contemporaneous. The investigators concluded that the unfluted Folsom points were made on purpose and that they were more than just fluted Folsom point rejects. At first, Wendorf and fellow investigator Kreiger were reluctant to give the unfluted Folsom points a formal status as a type, but in a forthcoming report, they designated them Midland points, after the nearby town.

 

Figure 7. Midland projectile points from the Sharbauer 
Site (Photo courtesy of TARL Archive). 

Figure 7 is a photograph of typical Midland projectile points from the Scharbauer Site near Midland, Texas. Oilfield pipe welder and discoverer of the site, Keith Glasscock, found the Midland point on the bottom row, second from right, within three to four feet of the exposed human bones. (Wendorf et al. 1955: 44-45).  

Figure 8. The 'point in question' is hiding
out with Midland points.

Greg Perino (1985: 253) described Midland points as small, flat points resembling Folsom points but with less basal indentation, and in some cases, straight bases. Bruce Bradley (2010: 474-475) expanded on the definition by stating that Midland points had wide, but relatively flat flake scars and very flat cross sections. He stated that Midland flintknappers used finely controlled percussion flaking to shape the points, but finished with non-invasive, abrupt, marginal retouch, which narrowed the points and eliminated negative bulbs and thinning flakes. Figure 8 shows the ‘point in question’ (second from the left) in a line-up with Midland points from the author’s surface-found collection. The ‘point in question’ looks right at home, doesn’t it? Do you see similarities? Differences?    

Milnesand. Joe Ben Wheat originally suggested that Milnesand points were one of three projectile point types discovered at the Olsen-Chubbuck Bison Kill, so I felt it appropriate to mention them here. E. H. Sellards (1955) investigated a bison kill northeast of Milnesand, New Mexico, where eleven projectile points were found in a bone bed, and another twelve projectile points were found on the surface of the ground. Sellards assigned the name Milnesand to some of the points. H. W. Wormington (1957: 112) described the projectile points, “They are characterized by transverse parallel flaking, but some have a fairly pronounced median ridge. They somewhat resemble Plainview points, but the bases are square, and thinning was accomplished through the removal of more and smaller flakes in such a manner as to produce a bevel. Basal grinding is present on all specimens and often extends one-half or more of the length of the point.”

Figure 9. Drawings of Milnesand points
from Perino (1985: 255).   

Wormington noted that little was known about the age or distribution of Milnesand points, but cited possible examples in Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and even Alaska. Whether Wormington believed those projectile points were a distinct projectile point type called Milnesand or a variety of Cody Complex or Plainview projectile points, we will never know for sure.

Does the Milnesand projectile point have enough variation in shape and features to be considered a different projectile point type? The ‘point in question’ does have transverse parallel flaking, and it does have a square and blunted/beveled base, but those attributes also fit the Firstview and Midland type descriptions. Perino (1985: 255) suggested that Milnesand points shared similar characteristics with Plainview and Agate Basin points. Buchanan et al. (2017: 274-275) noted that Milnesand points were pretty much a single-site occurrence and that the points did not have enough variation in geometric morphometrics from Plainview points to warrant a different projectile point type. Knudson (2017: 56) suggested that the Milnesand type be retained but only as a variety of Plainview points.   

Milnesand never caught on in archaeological or artifact-collecting circles. I grew up knowing very little about the Milnesand projectile point type, and even today, Milnesand is barely mentioned, if at all, in books about High Plains archaeology. Based on what I have read and seen, Milnesand is one of those projectile point types that might better fit into a more widely accepted category, such as Plainview.

Final Reflections

As you can see from this and other articles, projectile point typology is not a clear-cut science. In fact, it can be more art than science. In most cases, the attributes of a Paleoindian projectile point are so well represented that identifying the type is a ‘no-brainer’; in other cases, the point has common features from more than one type. That makes classifying difficult, if not impossible. The ‘point in question’ has common attributes from at least two projectile point types. 

Wheat (1972: 140-152) did not decide haphazardly to create a new projectile point type called Firstview. He realized that Paleoindians were not working from blueprints and that the templates they were using to make projectile points were much less rigorous than our own. He recognized that before creating a new projectile type, he needed to objectively review the similarities and differences between different projectile point types using raw material sources, flintknapper skill levels, geographic distributions, and relative ages. Wheat carefully analyzed Scottsbluff, Eden, San Jon, and Milnesand points from different sites and compared them with the Olsen-Chubbuck points. Eventually, he concluded that a new projectile point type was in order. His analytical approach to ensuring the correct decision cannot be questioned.  

There was only a single radiocarbon date available at the Olsen-Chubbuck Site, and it was obtained from bone collagen: 10,150 ± 500 B.P. (Holliday et al. 1998: 448). However, the investigators wrote that they were uncomfortable with that uncalibrated radiocarbon age because bone was difficult to date, and it was a lone sample with a very large standard deviation. The same investigators reported Firstview at other southern plains sites and established an uncalibrated radiocarbon age between 9400-8300 B.P, still within the range of younger Cody Complex sites but very young for both Milnesand and Midland.    

I do not believe that a Firstview projectile point type was necessary. In my opinion, the projectile point attributes from the Olsen-Chubbuck Site were well within the morphological and temporal range of Scottsbluff and Eden types. Of course, the Olsen-Chubbuck points were slightly different than other Scottsbluff and Eden points found elsewhere, but morphologically they were in the same ballpark. It is my contention that there is a high probability that one or two individuals involved in the bison kill made most of the Olsen-Chubbuck projectile points. That would explain the consistency in form, the impressive flintknapping ability, and the small features that differentiated Olsen-Chubbuck points from Cody Complex points found at other sites. For example, I would be hard pressed to find any significant differences between the Olsen-Chubbuck projectile points and the Scottsbluff and Eden points found at the Horner Site, the type site for the Cody Cultural Complex (Bradley and Frison 1987: 199-231).

After waffling back and forth for several years on whether the ‘point in question’ was Cody Complex or Midland, I settled on documenting it in my artifact database as a Firstview point from the Cody Complex in the Middle Paleoindian Period. I did that even though I made the case for not needing a Firstview projectile point type in the last paragraph. Hypocritical, I know, but since we have a Firstview projectile point type, it might as well be used. I made my decision based on the barely discernible Cody-like stem that the flintknapper created by grinding in the hafting area. Other evidence included its squarish base and the transverse parallel flaking. Could it be a Midland point? Absolutely. A Milnesand? Perhaps. We will never know for sure, but quite frankly, does it really matter? Paleoindians living very similar lifestyles made what we call Firstview, Midland, and Milnesand points, and they would probably never believe that ten thousand years later, we would be scrutinizing and cubby holing their tools and weapons into different categories.      

 

Comparisons of artifact types can, and will, demonstrate morphological differences, not necessarily cultural ones.

(Sellet 2001: 61)

 

References Cited

Bradley, Bruce A.

2010   Paleoindian Flaked Stone Technology on the Plains and in the Rockies. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek.

Bradley, Bruce A., and George C. Frison

1987  Projectile Points and Specialized Bifaces from the Horner Site. In The Horner Site – The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex. Academic Press. New York.    

Buchanan, Briggs, Michael J. O’Brien, and Mark Collard

2017  A Geometric Morphometrics-Based Assessment of Point Types on the Southern Plains during Plainview Times. In Plainview – The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact Style of the Great Plains. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.    

Chubbuck, Jerry

1959  The Discovery and exploration of the Olsen-Chubbuck Site (CH-3). In Southwestern Lore 25.  

Holliday, Vance A., Eileen Johnson, and Thomas W. Stafford Jr.

1998    AMS Radiocarbon Dating of the Type Plainview and Firstview (Paleoindian) Assemblages: The Agony and the Ecstasy. In American Antiquity, 64(3), 1999, pp. 44 41454.

Knudson, Ruthann

2017  The Plainview Assemblage in Context. In Plainview – The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact Style of the Great Plains. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.    

Perino, Gregory

1985  Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians -Volume 1.

Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr.

1942  Archaeological and Geological Investigations in the San Jon District, Eastern New Mexico. In Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol 103, No. 4.

Sellards, E. H.

1955  Fossil Bone and Associated Artifacts from Milnesand, New Mexico. In American Antiquity, Vol. XX, No. 4, pp. 336-344.    

Sellet, Frédéric

2001  A Changing Perspective on Paleoindian Chronology and Typology: A View from the Northwestern Plains. In Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 48-63.

Wheat, Joe Ben

1967  A Paleoindian Bison Kill. Scientific American 216: 44-52.

1972  The Olsen-Chubbuck Site – A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill.  In American Antiquity, Volume 37, Number 1, Part 2.  

Wendorf, Fred, Alex D. Krieger, and Claude C. Albritton

1955  The Midland Discovery. Greenwood Press. Westport.

Wormington, H. M.

1957  Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No. 4.      

About the Author

 

John Bradford Branney is the author of the historical fiction series, the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Hexalogy, adventures that took place on the High Plains around 12,600 years ago. Life was difficult for my Paleoindian characters. Every day was a toss-up between surviving and dying. The characters face all the social and physical struggles of being human, plus unpredictable acts of nature, mega predators high up the food chain, adversarial enemies, and the constant search for the next meal. Join me and my characters on an odyssey you will never forget.

In the Groove with a Midland Projectile Point

Figure One - Side A of 1.8-inch-long Midland dart or spear point showing the remnant of an
impact fracture that put the projectile point out of service until the user hastily repaired the tip.  

Ronny Walker surface rescued the 1.8-inch-long Midland dart or spear point in Figure One from a cotton field in Lynn County, Texas. I acquired this Midland point not for its beauty, even though I think it is beauty, but for its character. This projectile point saw a lot of action in its time, and if it could talk, I imagine it would have a pretty interesting story. Side A of the projectile point in Figure One clearly shows part of the impact fracture that damaged the projectile point's tip. The Paleoindian then repaired the projectile point and did a pretty sloppy job with the new tip.      

Midland projectile points exhibit wide, relatively flat flake scars that produce very flat cross sections. In outline, Midland projectile points resemble Folsom projectile points but are missing the flutes. Collectors and archaeologists often find Midland projectile points associated with Folsom projectile points leading some investigators to call Midland projectile points, unfluted Folsom projectile points. There are a few investigators who believe Midland projectile points and associated artifacts deserve their own cultural designation. Midland projectile points fall within the age range of the Folsom Complex, at around 12,900 to 12,200 years old. In my opinion, the same people made Folsom and Midland projectile points.    

Before this projectile point ended up in my collection, it belonged to Ronny Walker, Tim Elkins, Ed Rowe, Ron Van Heukelom, and Rodney Michel. Dwain Rogers, Bill Jackson, and Rodney Michel certified this projectile point as an authentic Midland projectile point.    

Now, I am going to take you on a quick journey back in time to get you in the groove for further analysis of the Midland projectile point. I am setting the dial on my time machine to 10,600 B.C. We will be going on a High Plains elk hunt with a Paleoindian named Chayton. This hunting excerpt is from the first book in my prehistoric saga titled SHADOWS on the TRAIL.         

Two majestic elk, a young bull and a cow, walked out from behind the trees, heading straight at Chayton. The bull led the way while the cow followed behind. The elk held their heads high and sniffed at the air, smelling for any danger that would set them off running. The elk, upwind from Chayton, did not pick up his scent and kept walking towards him.

Chayton’s left throwing arm was cocked and ready to throw the first spear, but the bull was still walking straight at him. Chayton did not like his chances for a kill with this throw. The bull had no vital organs exposed to Chayton’s line of fire and unless Chayton threw perfectly and severed an artery, the elk would not go down. The last thing Chayton wanted to do was track a wounded elk in this rugged country.

Figure Two - Reconstruction of the SHADOWS on the TRAIL scenario
with Chayton armed with a spear thrower and spear. However, this 
particular drawing is of two caribou bulls and not a bull and cow elk.

Chayton needed the elk to turn and expose its side to his spear. Chayton thought about moving, but one sound and he would send the elk crashing through the trees in the opposite direction. The elk continued to walk straight toward Chayton. Any closer and they would pick up Chayton’s scent.

Chayton searched the ground with his right hand and found a small rock. While his left arm kept his spear ready to throw, he hurled the rock to his right where it ricocheted off a tree. The bull reared back and ran away from the sound, exposing the left side to Chayton's spear. Chayton hurled the spear and the sharp fluted spear point popped when it penetrated the bull’s rib cage. The bull continued to run to the left while Chayton readied another spear. The confused cow ran away from Chayton, crashing through the trees that led back up the bluff. Chayton grabbed the rest of his spears and followed the blood spoor left by the bull.

Figure Three -  CLICK for SHADOWS on the TRAIL

When Chayton's spear smashed into the rib cage of the bull elk, the stone tip of the thin projectile point was most likely damaged and fractured, much like the Midland projectile point that I photographed in Figure One and in later figures in the article. 

Most prehistoric projectile points that I discover on the surface of the ground in the field are damaged in one way or another. On most of the prehistoric projectile points that I find, the damage appears to come from modern-day sources such as cows, plows, or earth-moving equipment. Most of the time the modern-day damage is obvious because of fresh breaks or fractures on the projectile point. However, there are a few projectile points where it is obvious that the damage happened in prehistoric times. The Midland projectile point is one of the latter.  

I seldom find pristine, undamaged stone projectile points. In my earlier artifact hunting days, I used to calculate in my head the ratio of "ninety percent or better complete" projectile points to total projectile point pieces found. I estimated that on average that ratio was somewhere between five and ten percent. That meant for every twenty projectile points, only one or two were "ninety percent or better complete". With each passing year, I am finding fewer total artifacts, and undamaged projectile points are even rarer than they were before. It was much easier to find prehistoric artifacts forty years ago than it is today. As I often remind myself when I am hunting, "Prehistoric artifacts are not a renewable resource."  

Fortunately, I am as interested in broken projectile points as I am in complete projectile points. I love doing what I call "autopsies" on damaged stone projectile points and speculating on how that projectile point ended up in the condition I found it. Please do not get me wrong, I would much rather find unblemished, perfect projectile points, but in today's world, damaged projectile points are the rule and not the exception. A person has to deal with the cards they were dealt.  

The root-beer-colored, semi-translucent Midland point in the figures is quite thin, and the Paleoindian who made the projectile point ground and polished the edges halfway up to the repaired tip (the red dots in Figure Four indicate where the projectile point was ground or polished). The repaired tip is not as noticeable on Side B in Figure Four as it is on Side A in Figure One, but the repaired tip still looks asymmetrical and hastily done and does not meet the same workmanship standards as the rest of the projectile point. 

Figure Four - Side B of the Midland dart showing much of
the original flaking. The repaired tip is evident, but the 
impact fracture is on the other face.     

Most Paleoindian flintknappers ground or polished the edges of their projectile points to ensure the razor-sharp rock did not slice through and damage the animal sinew they used to bind the projectile point onto a spear or dart foreshaft. In studying hundreds of projectile points, it is my experience that when Paleoindians ground or polished the basal edges, they did so for at least one-third to one-quarter of the total length of a freshly made projectile point. When those Paleoindians resharpened their projectile points, the ground or polished edge length increased as a percentage of the total projectile point length. Based on that, I am guessing that the original, undamaged Midland projectile point in Figures One and Four was quite a bit longer prior to the tip damage that occurred.  

This Midland projectile point from Texas saw some action, hunting or otherwise. Something happened to damage the distal end or tip of the projectile point. Perhaps, the projectile point slammed into a bison bone or a rock or something hard enough to shatter the original tip and one edge. The Paleoindian then hastily repaired the tip of the projectile point. Figure Five shows another view of the impact fracture at the tip. Based on the direction of the compression rings, the red arrow indicates the direction that the impact came from. The collision fractured the tip of the projectile point and the fissure advanced through the projectile point like a wave moving through water. Compression rings radiate away from the direction of impact much like ripples on a calm lake after a rock splashes in the water. The fissure began at the tip of the projectile point and traveled through the rock until its energy was dissipated or escaped out of the sides of the rock.  

Figure Five - Side A showing the impact fracture at the tip and the direction
that the force came from that damaged the tip.   

Impact with something hard caused the compression rings and ripples on the damaged tip. Oftentimes, the greater the impact or disturbance, the more severe the ripples and undulations are. Choppy ripples on a Folsom flute or even on an impact fracture indicate erratic bending forces in the rock at the time the fracture was initiated. The amplitude and frequency of the ripples are a rough measure of the amount of energy at the time of fracturing. Of course, flaws or inconsistencies in the raw material can also enhance ripples, but in the case of our Midland point, the ripples came from a front-end collision with a tough material.  

Figure Six - "B" marks the transverse break along the edge.  

The Midland projectile point has more damage from the collision than just the impact fracture. In Figure Six, I labeled a section along the projectile point edge with a "B". That "B" represents a transverse break or burin-like feature that I am convinced was the result of the projectile point's collision.  What is a burin and burination? 

Burination is a process used by prehistoric people to intentionally remove a small, relatively thick flake from another flake, blade, or biface using a snapped termination or a previous burination scar as the striking platform. Burin flakes or spalls run along an edge, rather than on the surface of the artifact's face. The scar left by the removal of the edge often intersects the artifact's face at a right angle, leaving a strong, but sharp edge for scraping or grooving hard materials. 

In the case of the Midland projectile point, I believe the burin-like feature along the edge was a transverse break caused by the same collision that created the impact fracture. Caution is always necessary when differentiating between an impact fracture, a transverse break, or an intentionally-crafted burin. However, on this Midland projectile point, the burin-like feature was not intentional, in my opinion, it was accidental.   

       

The historical fiction novels written by John Bradford Branney are known for their impeccable research and biting realism. In his latest blockbuster novel Beyond the Campfire, Branney catapults his readers back into Prehistoric America where they reunite with some familiar faces from Branney’s best-selling prehistoric adventure series the Shadows on the Trail Pentalogy.

John Bradford Branney holds a geology degree from the University of Wyoming and an MBA from the University of Colorado. John lives in the Colorado mountains with his wife, Theresa. Beyond the Campfire is the eleventh published book by Branney.

Midland v. Folsom and the Shadows on the Trail

Figure One - 2.0-inch long projectile point from Wyoming. Some might call this a Folsom 

point made on a flake (pseudo flute) while others might call it a Midland point. 

John Bradford Branney Collection.    

Fourth Edition 

I love researching archaeological reports about Paleoindians for my historical fiction books. I take what I learn about Paleoindian lifestyles and spin a yarn that portrays how Paleoindians might have lived. I love breathing life into Paleoindians and the challenges they faced 12,600 years ago. From what we know in the archaeological record, 'word of mouth' and 'hands-on' instruction were most likely the methods used for Paleoindians to pass on traditions to the younger generation. Archaeologists have not found any written documentation dating back to the time of Paleoindians in North America. 

The passage below in red is from the third book in my five-book, historical fiction series on Paleoindians. This particular book is titled WINDS of EDEN from the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Pentalogy. The series takes place around 12,500 years ago on the high plains of Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, and South Dakota. In this passage, an elderly man is showing his grandchild how to make a fluted projectile point that we now call a Folsom point. Here is a tiny taste of WINDS of EDEN;  

Click for My Books

The old man woke up from his nap when the sun was starting its descent in the sky. He reached over and picked up his satchel. He pulled out a large red and gray striped rock and sat staring at it. He rubbed the rock between his thumb and forefinger while thinking about everything that had happened to him since he had carried the rock from the canyon. Much had happened in his life since then, some of it good and some of it bad. When the old man finished reminiscing, he gently placed the red and gray striped rock back into the satchel. Then, with satchel in hand, the old man stood up and left his tipi. When he was outside the tipi, he had to shield his aged eyes from the bright sun. He slowly edged his way to a flat boulder next to his campfire where he sat down. Then, he pulled five unfinished spear points from the satchel. He laid the unfinished spear points down on the boulder next to him and then dug through the satchel, pulling out a cylinder–shaped punch made from an antler, a large antler hammer, small squares of bison hide, and a sharp deer antler tine. He placed these items next to the five unfinished spear points. He leaned over and picked up a flat rock at the base of the boulder. He set the flat rock down next to his other supplies. 

When the old man looked up, a young boy was running like the wind towards him.

“Haw! – Hello!” the old man said to the young boy when he arrived at the campfire.

“Haw!” the boy replied, somewhat out of breath. “I want to watch you.”

“Waste! – Good!” the old man declared with a grin.

The young boy sat down as close to the old man as possible without actually sitting on the old man’s lap. The old man picked up the first spear point and handed it to the young boy.

“He táku hwo? – What is it?” the old man asked.

The boy studied the piece of chert, his face frozen in a frown as he concentrated on the old man’s question. The young boy flipped the rock over in his hands, studying every surface. His eyes narrowed as he scrutinized the base of the spear point. Between the two sharp ears at the corners of the base of the spear point, the young boy spotted a tiny knob of chert, jutting out at the middle of the base.

“Tóka he? – What is wrong?” the old man asked, a whimsical smile on his face.

The boy flicked the tiny knob with his thumbnail and replied, “You have dulled this part.”

The young boy then ran his thumb across the small knobbed platform and said, “It is smooth.”

The fluted projectile point that the old man and the boy made was so distinctive that there is no mistaking a fluted Folsom point when found today.  

Headline: Pleistocene Woman Discovered at Midland, Texas 

In 1953, an avocational archaeologist 

by the name of Keith Glasscock 

discovered fossilized human remains

Figure two. A Kansas-found Folsom point and
a Colorado-found Midland point, both
made from Alibates agatized dolomite.
John Bradford Branney Collection.

remains in a sand blowout six miles southwest of Midland, Texas. In the same blowout, Mr. Glasscock found several fluted Folsom projectile points and a similarly made unfluted Folsom-like projectile point. Mr. Glasscock understood the archaeological significance of the fossilized human remains associated with the artifacts. He reported his findings to archaeologist Fred Wendorf. Wendorf, Glasscock, and other archaeologists investigated the site In all, Glasscock and the archaeologists found seven fluted Folsom projectile points and twenty-one unfluted Folsom-like points during their investigation. 

Wendorf and his colleagues named the site Scharbauer after the landowner and initially coined the term "unfluted Folsom point" to describe the Folsom-like projectile points found associated with the fluted Folsom points. In their study of the "unfluted Folsom points", the archaeologists came up with the similarities and differences between the fluted and unfluted points found at the site. They evaluated the raw material to see if the fluted and the "unfluted Folsom points" came from different geographical locations. The archaeologists concluded that the makers of the two projectile point styles used the same material. Their studies led the archaeologists to propose that several of the "unfluted Folsom points" were purposely made without flutes and that they were just not fluted Folsom point rejects. Later on and based on the high volume of unfluted Folsom points found at the Scharbauer site, Wendorf proposed a new projectile point type for the "unfluted Folsom points", calling them Midland after a nearby town. The name Midland stuck.      



Figure three. Colorado Folsom and
Midland projectile points.
John Bradford Branney Collection.

The investigation of the blowout at the Scharbauer site led the archaeologists to conclude that the human remains belonged to a woman who died in the late Pleistocene and that the associated Folsom / Midland artifacts came after her death. The archaeologists postulated that the woman could be a Folsom / Midland Paleoindian, but more likely she belonged to an earlier Paleoindian culture. Based on the geological analysis, the archaeologists suggested that there was a possibility that the Folsom and Midland projectile points came from the same Paleoindian culture, but their evidence was inconclusive. 

So where do Midland points belong?

Perhaps, Midland points were reworked Folsom points or were made from Folsom channel flakes. Maybe, Midland preform points were just too thin to flute. A few people argue that Midland was an archaeological complex separate from Folsom. These people call attention to a Midland-only site named Winkler-1, discovered in southeastern New Mexico by an amateur archaeologist who throughout the years surface collected Midland points from an active sand blowout. Food for thought, huh? 

If Midland was a separate archaeological complex, perhaps there was a transition period between fluted Folsom and unfluted Midland projectile points? 

What are your thoughts? 

Bradley, Bruce 
2010    Paleoindian Flaked Stone Technology on the Plains and in the Rockies. In Prehistoric Hunters-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies by Marcel Kornfeld, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson, pp. 474-475. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek, California.  

Wendorf, Fred, Alex D. Krieger, and Claude C. Albritton

1955    The Midland Discovery. Greenwood Press. Westport, Connecticut

Click on this link to order my books.